the travaux préparatoires hague rules hague-visby rules - Comite ...

PART II - HAGUE RULES 391Article 4 (2) (a) - Errors in navigation and managementARTICLE 42. Ni le transporteur ni le navire neseront responsables pour perte oudommage résultant ou provenant:a) des actes, négligence ou défautdu capitaine, marin, pilote oudes préposés du transporteur dansla navigation ou dans l’administrationdu navire;ARTICLE 42. Neither the carrier nor the shipshall be responsible, for loss ordamage arising or resulting from:a) act, neglect, or default of themaster, mariner, pilot, or the servantsof the carrier in the navigationor in the management of theship;ILA 1921 Hague ConferenceText submitted to the Conference[xlviii]2. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising orresulting from(a) faults or errors in the navigation or in the management of the ship.Second day’s proceedings - 31 August 1921[142]Sir Norman Hill: This clause, Article 4, is the shipowners’ clause. Now, Sir, I wouldventure to remind the Committee that we have dealt with the cargo interests clause inArticle 3, and we have agreed and accepted the actual words that the cargo interestshave put forward imposing the obligations on the ship with regard to seaworthiness,and, what is more important, we have accepted Article 3 (2), which says that “The carriershall be bound to provide for the proper and careful handling, loading, stowage,carriage, custody, care, and unloading of the goods carried”. We have not sought toweaken those or qualify those in any way. When we [143] come to Article 4 (2) our bigpoint is the navigation point, and what we have asked is that we should have the wordswhich from time immemorial have certainly appeared in all British bills of lading.“Faults or errors” have not appeared. They have been added. Our old words were:“Act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the carrier inthe navigation or in the management of the ship”, and we would ask, Sir, in our clauseto have our old words; leave out “faults or errors”, and put in our old words instead.[147]Mr. McConechy: On behalf of the interests I am here to represent, I am quite willingto accept what is printed here as amended by Sir Norman Hill. The only exceptionto that, if I may call it an exception, is with regard to “or in the management”. I put itnot so much that I am going to object it whole-heartedly, but I would like, at some timeor other, it to be explained. In our Chamber we did not understand the word “management”as it comes in here, because in the surface meaning of the word it contradictsall that has gone before; it even contradicts the preceding paragraph. I would suggest,if it is agreeable, that “or in the management” should be deleted in the same way as inthe Australian Shipping Act, the Overseas Carriers Act. There must be some reasonwhy it is in here, because the Canadian and Harter Act and the Dominion Act have it